OK, so another comparative request from me, since it'll be September before I can make a purchase. Rogue looks to have better mileage, and since I'm going to be trading in my hybrid, I'm used to higher overall mileage. I like the styling on them, and the interior looks good (though the info center has a lot of buttons), and hybrid is available on a couple different models. It is a CVT, and I don't see that any trims come with a HUD (which I've really grown to like the idea of having, LOL). Who buys a Rogue over a CX-5?
I'm going to skip the three pages of replies and tell you how we ended getting the CX-5 over the slew of segment and non-segment competitors. The wife wanted to trade in her 2004 Nissan Pathfinder. She liked her '04 Nissan and wanted to stay with the brand; however, Nissan has changed a lot in those 13 years and Nissans of today are not the Nissans of the early 2000s (both good and bad).
Despite the (2016) Rogue being a somewhat stylish vehicle and now the 2017s look a tad better both inside and out, you really have to look beyond the looks of the vehicle to find its true worth; something my wife had a hard time doing as all she knew, she wanted something new, something the same size as her Pathfinder, something with AWD, and something with dark gray or black interior and something that WAS NOT A WAGON. That is why she gravitated toward the Rogue (I like wagons and hatchbacks).
Budget was a big player in our purchase and so we were looking at the S trim with the "S Appearance" package - the sub $25k market. Higher trims may seem nicer, but it is still the same vehicle underneath...much like the CX-5 and Forester.
Our test drive (in the rain) went fine, and the interior bits felt nice and things were well placed; however, (overall) the driving feel and the engine sounds and the transmission performance were not that of a refined vehicle. That combo (2.5L I4 and CVT) might work well in and Altima or Sentra, but it did not do anything special in the Rogue. The engine felt like it was having to work hard all the time to get the Rogue moving. Of course, a little later on, we heard that Nissan would be releasing the Rogue Sport stateside (Qashqai in other markets), but Nissan dragged their feet on the release and its timing was not in line with ours in the end.
Anyway, long story short, do not "drive" a car by numbers on a page, especially the EPA mpg ratings as those are just estimates. You might get better mpg numbers; you might not... you need to really find what is important to you that the vehicle can do and the way it does it. For us, the KIA Soul+ almost did it for us as it did everything we needed our next car to do. It ticked all but a few boxes, like overall rear cargo space and AWD, but we were willing to let those slide because the car did so well in other areas. The KIA product was hands down better than the Nissan product, in terms of performance and feel.
Luckily, we came across the CPO CX-5 that sits in our garage and the reason it is there is it brought more of the whole package that the wife was looking for. The Rogue was just blah, the Forester was spartan/rugged/plain and didn't excite, the CR-V was hard to see out of and felt low-rent despite the premium price and it too did not do anything to make you
want to drive it.
Is the CX-5 perfect...no. Does it get the best MPG...no Does it have the most interior space...no Does it come in nice colors...a few. Regardless of what the CX-5 (Touring) did not bring to the table that some of the other vehicles in the class did, it fit our needs for what we needed it to do, it would get better than 19mpg on a bad day, and it looks good doing absolutely nothing.
Your needs and mileage may vary, but that's how it worked out for us. I don't think the Rogue would be a vehicle for long-term ownership. I see it as more of a 3 yr lease and give it back type of vehicle, but that is just my opinion.
.
